Prophet Saddam

You frighten me and give credence to the idea that some thoughts and ideas should be left unpublished.

Do you care to address the content of the book?

__________________

Jimmy Coonan

Calling him names? Where did I do that? If I did I apologize.

(I have elsewhere I'm sure, but not in this thread at least)

I'm hellbent on tearing him down because I don't agree with him politically, and the amount of enthusiasm he has generated means he is more likely to win, which makes him more dangerous. If Saddam's going to keep making threads about Ron Paul I'll say I disagree with him and I'll say why. Arguing about politics is the point of this subforum isn't it?

__________________
"free <insert member name>"

4/20=Governor's Day.

He needs to learn that lil Larry will never be the same again after this painful intrusion. Larry's family asks for privacy and respect while they cope with this tragic molestation.

Jimmy Coonan

His ghostwriters speak for him too.

You're right, there really isn't much else to discuss on this.

So.......how bout dem Giants?

__________________
"free <insert member name>"

4/20=Governor's Day.

He needs to learn that lil Larry will never be the same again after this painful intrusion. Larry's family asks for privacy and respect while they cope with this tragic molestation.

Linkey

to dub:

of course he wants as many books sold as possible. why would he care about how the books are distributed after they are purchased?

Prophet Saddam

So that's the only thing you've got against him? All you've got to 'tear him down' with?

I was hoping for something more substantive.

Ron Paul Library - Articles and speeches by Ron Paul

And don't think you can just change the topic of the thread...we're about to get to the cult of Oprah Book Club.

__________________

DubStyle311

I think i laid out my case pretty well in the Ron Paul is wrong thread.

He's a total FRAUD.

__________________
I may be wrong, but I doubt it.

Prophet Saddam

I fairly well understand that you dislike change.


That is fine, but to drag your knuckles around accusing him of fraud is very disingenuous.

__________________

DubStyle311

Accuse him of being a fraud*

And I think ive laid out a legitimate case.

__________________
I may be wrong, but I doubt it.

stoneric

You sound like a leader of a rival cult. That's right you're an avowed neocon.

LetsPlayYourWay

You have laid out a legitimate case for extremist American politicians, yet you got no case on Ron Paul.

Canuck Wisdom

I dont agree. He has a clear political philosophy which is ideologically based and predictable. This seems to threaten you? I am not aware of any other candidates which have defined themselves ideologically as opposed to on an issue by issue basis, ala their funding, except maybe Mike Gravel.

And he's against the obviously crazy drug war, not too many other candidates you hear talk about that, and that seems like a fundamental, commonsense, honest thing to be against to me. Hardly a candidate trying to cheat people. So what if he wants a popular book, its a great message that appeals to American founding narratives.

__________________
-Knowitall A&P type-

ziplock

Ah, how far democracy has come.

I like this thread. Talking about Paul's motives behind publishing a book and taking little bits and pieces of information from all over and constructing these intriguing conspiracy theories. Props on yours Dub I liked it.

On the other hand though, really wtf is this? Why does Paul's motives for publishing a book matter? Why are we so concerned what was said on some newsletter etc etc? I see no point in it. It's simple to me. Look at all the candidates positions on various matters. Pick the one that most agrees with your hopefully educated opinion and if your candidate wins make sure they stay consistent on their platform. If not, make the guys political life a living hell as best you can. He's there to do his job, make sure he does it well and the way you believe it should be done.

This to me shows how separated from the political process the people as a whole have become. We've taken an armchair consumers position on the whole thing. It's getting so commercialized with the stupid irrelevant campaign ads and all these little rumour tracking, etc. Fun times.

__________________
Insanity is the only sane reaction to an insane society.

mafiax

This is my first post on these forums. I'm surprised that this place isn't 100% pro Ron Paul because he is the ONLY candidate that would legalize marijuana. This is yahooka after all..

I am totally opposed to the drug war. I was caught in the system for 5 years and ended up serving time in prison for growing. Go Ron Paul.. he's got my vote tomorrow.

cantSEEme

damn it, the yahooka search engine sucks balls.



this thread did not come up, and i had to search for it myself.

WTF?!?!?!?!

anyways, yeah, this book is great. i felt compelled to summarize the first chapter to share with ppl what a great read this book is. and imo, this book was/is more than a presidential campaign book. it should be a model on a way to get america back to its roots and back on track, political parties not withstanding. great ideas should be heeded, and this book has lots of them.

my summary of chapter one:

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Chapter 1 - The False Choices of American Politics.

Besides the preface, this is obviously the beginning of the book. In this chapter, Ron starts off by talking about how the American public is treated to false choices during every election, but the shared assumptions of these choices are never cast in doubt or even raised. He then goes on to explain that we are treated to the same tired recipe, two popular candidates from opposing parties dissagreeing on a few things but projecting that they have widely different views on problems and philosophies of the government. He describes in detail how the conservative candidate talks about waste in our government and how they use small amounts of money to back their views which comes to about 0.00045 percent of the federal budget, but leaving the other 99.99955 percent of the budget untouched and/or unexplained. Then he goes on to decribe how the opposing parties are really indistinguishable from each other, citing that Hillary Clinton and John Kerry both voted for the Iraq war, and besides Dennis Kucinich and Mike Gravel, even the democrats who ran on an anti-war platform aren't opposed to needless wars.

Continuing on, he speaks about how the conservative party is just a shell of it's former self, which used to be composed of thinkers and people with worldviews and ideas, and how the conservative party is now the exact opposite of that, citing that this party now supports and even encourages anti-intellectualism, and jingoism, and how it would have embarrased earlier party members. He says there are still some good conservative thinkers around, but most are comfortable with Big Brother at home, and abroad. He mentions how most conservatives "latch" on to phony but conservative sounding causes like tax-reform, which is never a solution because taxes get "shuffled around" rather than reduced. Going on to describe the massive republican off-year election victory in 1994, he describes how neocon Bill Kristol urged them not to do anything drastic, but to wait until the repubs. win the white house in '96, which they didnt, and how nothing got done. Instead, the republican leadership urged the congressmen to take on something called the "Contract with America", which they claimed was a major overhaul of the federal government, but couldn't have been farther from the truth. No questions were ever raised, and even the most "radical" changes of the government was "modest & safe".

Now, we move on to the liberal left, and how Paul is unimpressed with it. He sites how even though they consider themselves critical thinkers, they are inexcusably naive, based on ideas that are completely removed from reality. He notes how their position on needless wars are not even consistent, citing how Howard Dean was all in favor for Bill Clinton's intervention in Bosnia, to the point of urging the president to take military action beyond the multilateral activity already taking place. He also notes how the liberal left is alienated by betrayals in a movement which has made peace with the establishment.

Moving on, he describes how back in 2006, he was urged to run for president on the idea of "true freedom", how he thought no one would vote for him on those principals, and how he couldnt have been more wrong. He found out that most americans want a change in the current govermental policies. Because of the message he was running under, his base was composed of all diferent parties, mingling together, from the left to the right, from liberals to conservatives, who all found out they had much more in common politically then they ever could have thought; freedom. He describes how when we stop treating each other as a means to our own selfish needs, but to respect one another as individuals with rights and goals of our own, that cooperation and goodwill suddenly become feasible for the first time. Mentioning that his platform is for freedom and individuals rights, he belives agression should be used only defensivly, and that we should respect each other and accomplish our goals through reason and persuasion rather than threats and coersion. This, and not "economic efficiancy" is the primary moral reason for opposing government intrusions into our lives: government is force, not reason.

He goes on to decribe the "republican" party he is a part of, how most people think his thoughts are actually oposite of the republican party, but in truth, he is the original republican party; against needless wars, for the rights and liberties of citizens, and goes on to quote Robert A. Taft, a republican from the days where the party actually meant more than riches, taxes, and war-mongering. He describes how people started calling his platform a "revolution", which indeed it is, although a peacful one. He mentions how in a country where political debate is as restricted as ours, its "revolutionary" to talk about whether we actually need troops in 130 countries, and whether the noninterventionalist foreign policy of our founding fathers would be better. It is "revolutionary" to think that more and more power in Washington is actually not as good for us as popular thought indicates. It is "revolutionary" to ask questions about privacy, police-state measures, taxation, social and foreign policies, and countless other things. He considers his "revolution" a continuation of the american revolution, and the founding fathers princibles: liberty, self-government, the constitution, and a noninterventionalist foreign policy. And the conclusion of this chapter basically is an "outline" on what president Bush's successor should follow, in the wake of his disaterous presidency to help our country get on the good foot and the right track, which is what this chapter was about.

__________________